Jesus came into the world under the oppression of Roman rule and the wickedness of a pagan culture and corrupt politics. Boteach claims the New Testament must be read within the Jewish context and the political pressure of the time. In doing so, we risk our traditions and hold our theology up to scrutiny — it’s not a comfortable place.

Especially when he explains that a lot of our misunderstandings between the faiths arose due to politically motivated editing of the New Testament. The author claims that the edits are obvious once you understand Jewish tradition and history. The book promises to introduce us to the Rabbi Jesus, and teach us to read between the lines and see the shadows in the margins.

I don’t know that I will always agree with the author, but I do believe him when he writes, “American culture is less in accordance with Christian theology than many would think.” If we want to restore our culture, it’s time we ditch the blue-eyed, blonde European version of Jesus that no more represents a realistic image of the Savior than the Westboro Baptist Church reflects his teachings. We need the real deal.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” New International Version

Rhonda Robinson writes on the social, political and parenting issues currently shaping the American family. She lives with her husband and teenage daughter in Middle Tennessee. www.rhondarobinson.me Follow on twitter @amotherslife

Yes, the Jews rejected Christ's offer of Grace because He wasn't what they were expecting, but you can't really understand the whole without knowing the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is the Jewish faith and foundation upon which all the rest is based. No, we don't hold ourselves to the fullness of Jewish law, but our tradition is very much rooted in it. And you need to have familiarity with it to understand many of Christ's teachings because he was Jewish and his followers were Jewish.

Interesting. However, it was the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus because He didn't fit the paradigm they had created. They had so perverted the beautiful gift God had given them that they didn't recognize their own Messiah when He finally came. In the same way, many Christian leaders have so perverted the Truth that they don't recognize their Savior, either.The only answer, as I see it, is to desire the Truth regardless of the personal cost. That approach will work for everyone.

What is interesting is the hostility that the Messianic Jews (for Jesus) receive from mainstream Jews, whereas another Messianic Jewish sect Chabad.

To embrace the radiocative core of goyishness—Jesus—violates the final taboo of Jewishness[.] ... Belief in Jesus as Messiah is not simply a heretical belief, as it may have been in the first century; it has become the equivalent to an act of ethno-cultural suicide.[142][143] - Rabbi Carol Harris-Shapiro

The shorter version of Michael Medved's contribution to Why are Jews Liberals symposium by Commentary Magazine...

"Anyone who doubts that rejection of Jesus has replaced acceptance of Torah (or commitment to Israel) as the eekur sach—the essential element—of American Jewish identity should pause to consider an uncomfortable question. What is the one political or religious position that makes a Jew utterly unwelcome in the organized community? We accept atheist Jews, Buddhist Jews, pro-Palestinian Jews, Communist Jews, homosexual Jews, and even sanction Hindu-Jewish meditation societies. “Jews for Jesus,” however, or “Messianic Jews” face resistance and exclusion everywhere. In Left-leaning congregations, many rabbis welcome stridently anti-Israel speakers and even Palestinian apologists for Islamo-Nazi terror. But if they invited a “Messianic Jewish” missionary, they’d face indignant denunciation from their boards and, very probably, condemnation by their national denominational leadership. It is far more acceptable in the Jewish community today to denounce Israel (or the United States), to deny the existence of God, or to deride the validity of Torah than it is to affirm Jesus as Lord and Savior.

For many Americans, the last remaining scrap of Jewish distinctiveness involves our denial of New Testament claims, so any support for those claims becomes a threat to the very essence of our Jewish identity. Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition. "

The Commentary Article you mention is entitled "Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium", and it's a discussion of Norman Podhoretz's attempt to address a question he is often asked by his fellow conservatives: Why Are Jews Liberals?

You left the next sentence out of your quotation of the Commentary article:

"Rather than acknowledge the key role played by Christian Zionists (prominently including Harry Truman) in establishing and sustaining the U.S.-Israel alliance, liberal partisans love to invoke 2,000 years of bloody Christian anti-Semitism."

As the author of the article concludes, "As Podhoretz writes, the Right has, of late, been more supportive of Israel. [...] Those observations might lead one to expect a political realignment. But I suspect that until conservatism convinces most Jews that they have a sympathy [...] it (conservatism) will remain, among Jews at least, distinctly the minority movement."

The idea is that most Jews remain Liberals because they associate conservatism with Christian zealotry, and are distrustful of Christians after having suffered "2,000 years of bloody Christian anti-Semitism." This includes the denial by Christians that Jesus and most of his early followers were Jewish.

The trend is changing, and it's too bad that most American Jews don't appreciate conservatism more. But I'm not sure what your "Haters gonna hate" comment means. Does it refer to the "2,000 years of bloody Christian anti-Semitism," including the denial that Jesus and most of his early followers were Jewish?

Today many Jews are afraid of anything labeled Christian or Messianic, simply because they associate it with "2,000 years of bloody Christian anti-Semitism". And this is exactly the point Podhoretz was making: Jews are afraid of conservatives whom they assume, rightly or wrongly, to be mostly anti-Jewish Christians, and that's why Jews mostly remain politically liberal in spite of the fact that Evangelical Christians like Pastor John Hagee are Israel's best friend, while many Liberals are pro-Palestinian, i.e. anti-Israel.

I once heard a Klansman defend his hatred of blacks, with a long list of greivances. "Never trust a N*gger," he said.

These Jews are no different. Their list of greivances may be longer, but the gist is the same.

The Rabbi quoted is not a Messianic Jew. That Rabbi in fact wrote a book after studying Messianic Jews, because she was confounded by the ostracization of Messianic Jews by the larger Jewish community. These people are heretics and are treated poorly by Jews and Jewish institutions just because their beliefs are unacceptable to Jews.

It's clear that most Jews hate Christians, by their treatment of them within the Jewish ethnic and cultural milieu, as represented by Messianic Jews.

There is never an excuse for committing a hate crime of any sort. I hope we can agree on that! Wrongheaded people of all religions and nationalities are capable of committing hate crimes.

It is true that in Israel there are Jews committing hate crimes against Messianic Jews. But consider too that non-Orthodox Jews have also complained of discrimination and intolerance by members of Orthodox Jewish groups. [U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2008]. So Messianic Jews are not the only ones being targeted.

The Klan eventually embraced a burning Latin cross as a symbol of intimidation, and a representation of the Klan's Christian message. [Wikipedia]

The Klan not only went after Blacks, but Jews and Catholics as well [Wikipedia].

But based solely on the above, it would be faulty logic to say that most Protestants hate Jews, and Catholics, as represented by the primarily Protestant Klan's hate crimes against them. Therefore, I heartily disagree with your conclusion that "most Jews hate Christians [...] as represented by (their treatment of) Messianic Jews."

Please remember too that Israel is not the only country where religious hate crimes are committed. FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 2011, percent of all religious hate crimes by victim category:

Anti-Jewish 62%Anti-Christian 9%Anti-Islamic 13%All Other 16%

Does this mean most Americans hate Jews? I think not.

Unfortunately, hate groups of all religions have always existed, and, will always exist. But before you go throwing stones, consider John 8:7 and ask yourself, "Am I, or my group, without sin?"

The vast majority of American Jews are the cultural and political enemies of European Christendom.

Whether they have good reason to be, has no bearing on that reality.

What European Christendom needs to do is to disempower it's political and cultural enemies, because that is what is being done to them in their nation states. If Jews were being disempowered in Israel and Israel was being de-Judaified in the name of celebrating diversity.....it would clearly be seen as ugly genocidal anti-Semitism. However when it's advocated by Jews (and other minority groups) as morally righteous agenda with regards to European Christian nation states....it's just as ugly. This is what European Christians need to understand. Many "Others" despise them, and wish them ill. No amount of disempowering yourself and empowering Others who despise you and yours into positions of power within all your institutions is going to change this. They will merely use there power to further disempower, discriminate against European Christians, redistribute the wealth to all Others, and damage irrevocably the once great nation states and civilization that European Christendom built.

I wish it werent so, but there it is. Wishful thinking has brought us to the brink of utter destruction (deconstruction).

You give no evidence at all for your outrageous and false claim about American Jews. It is simply ridiculous on the face of it.

It sounds like you are paraphrasing Hitler when you say things like "European Christendom needs to [...] disempower it's political and cultural enemies" who you defined as the American Jews. Sure, another round of Jew scapegoating, that will cure Europe's problems! Good luck on that one!

You present a false narrative, that to oppose the disempowerment of European Christians in their own countries = Nazism. The same is done with regards to the Jews of Israel. That they must accept the Right of Return, disempower themselves and create a multicultural utopia in the place that the Jewish State once resided, or else they are Nazis.

That argument is not just ludicrous, but offensive. I dont do it to the Jewish majority of Israel and it's just as ugly when it's done to European Christians wirh regards to delegitimizing their nation states via demonization. Shame on you!

What outrageous claims have I made about American Jews? None.

They are the farthest Left ethnic group in the US and have been for over half a century. The majority of American Jews fully embrace the disempowerment of European Christians and the de-Christianizing of the institutions and public square...by their embrace of radical secularization and multiculturalism, diversity promotion, mass immigration, amnesty.

These are easily established facts.

Now Im not targeting Jews, we are just talking about them, here. There are plenty of other hostile minorities, as well, under the Leftist umbrella, deconstructing European Christendom, disempowering European Christians and empowering themselves, not as they falsely claim in the pursuit of policy implementation of equality before the law, but radical egalitarianism, special protection and priveleges, legal discrimination against European Christians as diversity promotion, preferred advancement, promotion and hiring into positions of power in all of our institutions.

If I oppose this, this doesnt make me a Nazi. But rather a rational human being, looking out for his tribes best interests. This doesnt mean that minorities have to be treated poorly. Im a classical liberal for God's sake. Not a Nazi.

It is fascinating and devastating at the same time. Time and again we understand that Israel has no more honorable friend in this country than evangelical Christians.

Ayn Rand would discuss the irony of hating the good because it IS the good.If Jews are about anything, they are about history. Is their history so overwhelmed by wrongs done in the name of Christianity that all others are subsumed by them? I support Israel and I support "Jewishness" I guess. But there is plenty that I will never understand.

As someone that actually has a formal theological education from several accredited universities and seminaries, I am aware that Jesus was a Jew. Not only that, but all of Jesus' followers were Jews. St. Paul declared himself to be a Hebrew of Hebrews. This is no revelation. What I suspect is happening is that there is a discrediting of the revelation of Jesus as found in Scripture. Here is a warning. There is no Jesus apart from the revelation found in Scripture. The quest to try and find the historical Jesus in contrast to the Christ of faith has been tried, or in this case, the Jewish Jesus that is different than the Jesus found in Scripture is simply another attempt at creating a Jesus in one's own likeness.

If people study the roots of Christianity, they will discover that many different views of Yeshua (Jesus) existed prior to the solidification of the Roman and Orthodox churches. And there were many disagreements regarding what was Scripture and what was not. So what you warn against has been going on since the beginning. Anyone who studies with an open mind Yeshua (Jesus) and the early Christians, both Jewish and Non-Jewish, will be greatly rewarded. It's quite a fascinating period of history. The truth never hurt anyone -- it's struggling against it that causes pain!

This Jesus is a myth. If he was real he would have a Hebrew name. He doesn't. He is known by a Hindi name in Hebrew, Yeshu, the same as in India. It's a sobriquet for Krishna. The myth developed in Egypt where there were missionaries from India.

That is pure crap. Jesus is the Latin translation of the Hebrew name Joshua. It has nothing to do with India although Alexander the Great introduced the Greek language into India, and some of the Greek names found in Scripture may have been introduced into India by Alexander. India has no influence upon anything found in the Scriptures.

The name that was first heard in Israel circa 120 ce was Iesous in Greek from the book that had arrived. Iesous was a common Greek name. The parallel name in Hebrew was Yeshua. The rendition back and forth was automatic Iesous to Yeshua and vice-versa. But the Greeks and Hebrews got their names by translating from a third language, which can only be Egyptian. The Egyptians just copied the Indian name. That's why Iesous and Yeshu don't line up. The Indians had been in Egypt for centuries back to the days when they arrived as soldiers in the Persian armies.

That's why there is a problem with Petra and Petros as well. Petra was the heavenly gatekeeper in the Egyptian religion for millennia. They just read him into the new Greek myth. But "Petra" is feminine in Greek, so they had to go to Petros, but this still caused confusion.

If you knew anything about the languages of Hebrew, Greek, or Egyptian (?), you would know how ridiculous you sound. Petra is a very common word in the Greek language. It has nothing to do with India or Egypt. It simply means "bedrock." Petros is the masculine form of petra. There is no confusion about the meaning of these terms. Petros is the Greek translation of the Aramaic word, Cephas. Petros has nothing to do with anything to do with the Egyptians or Indians. There is more similarity between German and Swahili than there is between Greek and Egyptian (?).

The only reason I'm here is because they are talking about a Judeo-what?-hyphen tradition. I'll tell you the Judeo tradition on this myth. The book arrives in Israel circa 120-130 CE. Word gets out that the Greeks have written about a new Greek god they have invented and this time involving the Jews. Meir, the sage, reads it and gives it the name by which it is known among Jews ever since.The "Aven Gilyon." A polite translation would Utter Nonsense. I've written two books on the subject and I sell a few too.

You views are in the same category as those that want to believe that Jesus is a space alien from another solar system. You have absolutely no evidence for your views. Name one single credible person that supports your wacky ideas? If you were the least bit familiar with any of the scholarly resources, such as BDB, TDNT, TDOT, Louw & Nida, etc. you would know that the etymologies of every significant word in Greek and Hebrew has been thoroughly studied. These studies totally and completely destroy your views. Not only that, I doubt that you have ever studied any language, for you seem to be totally unaware of even the most basic understanding of linguistic theory.

I am fluent in Hebrew. Next thing you are going to tell me is that there was a place called Nazareth. State your sources either in Hebrew, Latin, or Greek. You won't find any because that place never existed then. Jesus of Where? That's just for openers. My books are called "The Jesus Myth: A Quick Study" and "The New Testament Sliced And Diced." If you can answer the points raised there I am open to changing my mind.

Nazareth is the largest city in the North District of Israel. In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood home of Jesus. [Wikipedia]

A Hebrew inscription, dating to the late third or early fourth century, mentions Nazareth as a place existing around 132-135 C.E. The gospels of Matthew and Luke both mention Nazareth. [New World Encyclopedia]

Josephus, commander-in-chief of the Jewish forces in the northern sector in the Jewish War (circa 70) describes in great detail that area. No Nazareth. The Talmud mentions 63 towns in the north. No Nazareth. The years 132-135 was the Bar Kochba War in which 600,000 Jews died; equal losses to the Romans, 983 towns destroyed, essentially every town in the country. No Nazareth. First mention of Nazareth anywhere, in Eusebius, fourth century. First reference in Hebrew literature, 900 years later.

Four miles from the site was the Greek-speaking metropolis of Sepphoris. During the first half of the first century there was a tremendous building boom in that area. Anyone living in Nazareth who had a trade or a business would have been sitting pretty. The town itself would have become a boom town. No Nazareth.

Think of it in terms of Holocaust Denial. The purpose is the delegitimization of Christianity, not dedication to truth. "Nazereth didnt exist" is the functional equivalent of Jews were not targeted for extermination by the Nazis.

To KayakAngler. You're the guy who wrote "Yeshua." Is that what they call him in Korean or Azerbajani? Or did you just invent it?

EscapeVelocity, you are taking outright foolishness. There is no evidence of a city named Nazareth in the first century. What has that got to do with the Holocaust? Huh?

There is evidence of Christians, possibly Jewish Christians in Israel, after the Kitos War, circa 115. This war started when Trajan decided to move troops through Babylonia, where there was a large concentration of Jews. They said: these are the guys who destroyed the Temple, let's get 'em. When the fighting spread to North Africa and the Greek islands where there were major large cities, it became a race war. The Jews and the Greeks simply slaughtered each other. Total loss to the Jews was 750,000 counting those fighting the Romans on the eastern front. The loss to the Greeks was probably higher because entire cities were depopulated.

That's when Christians appeared in Israel with their book in Greek. Their leaders were Quadratus and Aristides. Next came the Bar-Kochba War. Every Jew in the land took up arms. The loss to the Romans was so great that Hadrian dared not go to the Senate and declare a victory. Bar-Kochba had harsh words for one only group: the Christians. He described them as cowards who were involved in espionage.

After the war the Romans exacted vengeance, subjecting large numbers of Jews to horrific tortures. Quadratus and Aristides fearing their group would also suffer hastened to Hadrian and declared, we have not now nor have we ever been members of the Jewish people or their religion. That was the last we heard of Christians within the Jewish people.

So in fact there were Jewish Christians, documented, in Israel only for about one decade. If any had existed previously they too would have been documented.

Do tell. The name of the character in Hebrew from the outset was Yeshu. That is a Hindi name, the same as is used in India. Yes "Iesous" in Greek and "Yeshua" in Hebrew were both common names and the country was bilingual, almost 50-50. The correlation was automatic. But the Jews first heard the name in Egypt where Indian missionaries were active; Yeshu is a sobriquet for Krishna. The Greeks translated from the Egyptian. That's why the names don't line up. The character has no Hebrew name. But then I already said this.

I've also got a book out entitled: "Words Of Anti-Semites And Other Idiots: An Idioticon." The word "idioticon" means glossary. Anti-Semites talk like you. They don't address issues. They simply scream loaded buzzwords: Holocaust! sound like Palestinians! What does that accomplish in shedding light on a subject?

I've always felt my Christian world-view was reasonably balanced with the Jewish faith, inasmuch as Jesus, Paul et al were Jews. However, the blind spots are always the ones we don't see.

Having said that, I have to admit that the term "Kosher Christianity" rings some alarm bells for me since I have been recently studying in the book of Galatians using Keller's recent book and sermons as a guide. (Read Galatians and you might understand my alarm bells, esp. ch. 1.) I can see ways that Kosher Christianity could be helpful, or just go completely the wrong way. We'll have to see.

Galatians is a letter from Paul the Apostle to a number of Early Christian communities. The letter was written at a very early stage in church history, when the vast majority of Christians were Jewish or Jewish proselytes, which historians refer to as the Jewish Christians. The central dispute in the letter concerns the question of the conversion of non-Jews to Christianity. [Wikipedia].

Galatians 2:11-13 describes the Incident at Antioch, a conflict between Paul, who advocated for non-circumcision of gentiles, and James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, as well as the Bishop of Jerusalem, who advocated for circumcision. Paul was angry that Peter sided with James and, to Paul's dismay, the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch sided with Peter and James as well, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas. [Wikipedia]

Circumcision was a huge issue, since it meant that non-Jewish Christians would have to accept Judaism first, symbolized by accepting circumcision, as a pre-requisite to becoming a Christian. Keep in mind that James and Peter both knew Jesus personally, while Paul had never met him, so it's resonable to assume that they more accurately knew where Jesus himself would have stood on the matter of circumcision.

It seems that the Christianity of the very early years, pre-Constantine and his declaring it the "official" state religion, then moving his capital to Rome and its subsequently becoming so political, would be the "real Christianity". No pomp, no riches, no officious hierarchy, hence no Vatican.

It could be claimed [I'm no theologian] that the Christianity of Rome was the origin of officially established and widespread anti-semitism.

The Jerusalem Church apparently was politically usurped by the Roman Catholics.

Now, there is a new pope who apparently is eschewing the previous pomp. Setting a better Christian example.

It would be difficult for the early Christians to be anti-Semitic since most of the leaders were Jews. You have to make a distinction between being anti-Semitic and anti-Judaisitic. The early Christians, including Jesus, rejected the corruption of the teachings of the Torah by the Pharisees and Sadducees, but they did not hate the Jewish race. When Christianity became intertwined with the state, such as under Constantine and later Christian Emperors, the state used its power to persecute those that would not accept Christianity.

Just for the record the notion that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is a relatively new phrase in the context of America's history. It made its appearance rather late (in the last fifty years or so) because prior to its ubiquitous presence America was known to be a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. It is Judeo because Christianity appended the New Testament onto the Old. So strictly speaking America was founded on Christian principles because it accepts both New and OldTestaments as the foundation of faith.

Lastly, I will NEVER read a book entitled "Kosher Jesus". The title is repugnant insofar as it sounds dismissive and arrogant. And offensive. You bet you'd never see anything written that was entitled Kosher Muhammad.

The Last Supper was the Jewish holiday of Passover, according to Matthew 26:17 and other gospels [Wikipedia].

The actual religion that most Christians follow today would more accurately be called Paulanity, since Paul was the one who pushed the idea that non-Jews could become Christians without first becoming circumcised, i.e. converting to Judaism.

Galatians 2:11-13 describes the Incident at Antioch, a conflict between Paul and James the Just, the brother of Jesus and the Bishop of Jerusalem, who advocated that all non-Jewish Christians needed to be circumcised. Paul was angry that Peter sided with James. To Paul's dismay, so did the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas. [Wikipedia]

Keep in mind that James and Peter both knew Jesus personally, while Paul had never met him, so it's reasonable to assume that they more accurately knew where Jesus himself would have stood on the matter of circumcision.

The bottom line is that if the idea of a kosher Jesus is "repugnant" to you, than prepare to be repugnated if you are interested in understanding the true Jesus. Christians who are willing to discover the truth will be greatly rewarded.